No, roughlydrafted.com is a joke. End of story.
As for MS being worse than other companies, a lesson in corporate history may sway your views somewhat. You can start with Walmart, Exxon and MacDonalds to begin with.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows Goes Multi-Touch
- Thread starter Mykbibby
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, roughlydrafted.com is a joke. End of story.
As for MS being worse than other companies, a lesson in corporate history may sway your views somewhat. You can start with Walmart, Exxon and MacDonalds to begin with.
For a joke, he (Dilger) did a pretty decent job at summing things up at a more than cursory level, and insightfully so, to say the least.
(McDonald's)
Why not then go back further to the Rockefeller's and Standard Oil, our Beef and Cattle Industry, Coca-Cola, or our own US government? To clarify, MS single handedly holds the world record for global anti-trust lawsuits, and pending anti-trust lawsuits. Wikipedia carries an extensive entry dedicated to the criticism of MS's business practices: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft which happens to be quite a bit more extensive than either Walmart's, McDonald's, or Exxon's.
LOLno. Seriously, he's a joke amongst virtually the entire tech community, the vast majority of journalists and even most Apple fans.
Sure, it serves the point equally well.
Yes... and...? Given that it's one of the world's biggest companies it's hardly surprising. Now, like I said, have a look at some of the other big companies and their legal records, how many of them are directly responsible for people actually dying and then come back and tell me MS are worse.
Wiki carries criticicism articles for most major corporations, either separately or as part of the main article. Wiki also isn't exactly the best source for in depth review.
An open source encyclopaedia has a more extensive entry on a software company than oil and retail companies? Who'd have thought it!
I'm not going to continue this argument because I don't think you can see past your hatred of MS and look at things objectively.
I can put this into some context for you guys. Many years ago I worked in intelligence, and recognise these tactics very clearly. Some can be traced to actual ops carried out by the usual suspects!
Such campaigns do work, but mostly in short bursts for short-term objectives, and then only on an unsophisticated audiences with poor communications and therefore poor access to independent, reliable information.
Discovering that the world's biggest company is employing these tactics is like reading the plot of a really bad 'B' movie. But when you study the leaders... Gates: "I wish I had Steve's taste", and EVERYTHING Ballmer does and says, coupled with the actual customer feedback, it's easy to recognise the desperation that lead to this situation.
If you want to be successful in technology in the 21st C, it's clear you first have to sew genuine seeds, with reliable products, in the 20th C, mainly because the audience today is both very sophisticated and has good communications and reliable access to accurate, verifiable information.
This isn't difficult to work out. But anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they've backed the wrong horse or team in any given situation, is bound to be very defensive. Backing MS ten or fifteen years ago was like past post betting. Backing MS today is letting the whole world know you really haven't thought about your choice.
There's tons of stuff that can be thrown into the mix to support these facts, and it's all there for anyone to find - if you're prepared to put in the hours and be objective. But this is my business now. I'm studying where the puck is going to be, and I'm doing it by watching the Wayne Gretzkys of several different games. If I share all my research, the field will be even more crowded!
Oh, and if you think the roughlydrafted article is flawed, why not research it thoroughly and come back with some evidence?
Such campaigns do work, but mostly in short bursts for short-term objectives, and then only on an unsophisticated audiences with poor communications and therefore poor access to independent, reliable information.
Discovering that the world's biggest company is employing these tactics is like reading the plot of a really bad 'B' movie. But when you study the leaders... Gates: "I wish I had Steve's taste", and EVERYTHING Ballmer does and says, coupled with the actual customer feedback, it's easy to recognise the desperation that lead to this situation.
If you want to be successful in technology in the 21st C, it's clear you first have to sew genuine seeds, with reliable products, in the 20th C, mainly because the audience today is both very sophisticated and has good communications and reliable access to accurate, verifiable information.
This isn't difficult to work out. But anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they've backed the wrong horse or team in any given situation, is bound to be very defensive. Backing MS ten or fifteen years ago was like past post betting. Backing MS today is letting the whole world know you really haven't thought about your choice.
There's tons of stuff that can be thrown into the mix to support these facts, and it's all there for anyone to find - if you're prepared to put in the hours and be objective. But this is my business now. I'm studying where the puck is going to be, and I'm doing it by watching the Wayne Gretzkys of several different games. If I share all my research, the field will be even more crowded!
Oh, and if you think the roughlydrafted article is flawed, why not research it thoroughly and come back with some evidence?
Well then, by your own standards, MS is a joke amongst a great majority of the tech community, (a large percentage of whom are at the same time indebted to MS for the countless hours of troubleshooting opportunities MS provides them) a vast majority of reputable journalists, and even most Apple fans. If there happens to be anything inaccurate about Dan's article, as stated above, please do elaborate.
And how pitiful that one of the world's biggest companies finds it necessary to resort to such petty, underhanded behavior, and products of substandard quality.
True, however, had I posted 1/10th of the detailed articles related to the business called MS, It would have filled an entire page.
Actually, in a way, I admire MS for their quasi-valiant efforts. Their "Cashback Program" is bound to lure some novice consumers toward their Live search, the Microsoft Point System will eventually convince some that they're getting a better deal than they are, and MS's (Ballmer's) vehement denial that there ever was, or is, anything problematic with any of their products will eventually cause consumers to surrender, and accept things as is. "People are buying it, pirating it, and using it, therefore it doesn't suck....." Despite abysmal customer feedback, this has been Ballmer's perpetual motto of denial......He certainly does go out of his way to look at things objectively.
(even after SP1, Vista still uses waaaaaaay too much RAM when idle, USB file transfer chokes consistently, Audio Encoding, Media Encoding, Video Encoding; no improvement, file compression; minimal improvement, start-up time actually 1 second longer than retail version)
So, apparently, the 2010-2012 version of Windows will still not have the next-gen file system we heard about more than 10 years ago -- when "Cairo" was the lead codename -- let alone a microkernel with modules for OS "personalities" and compatibility.
And you're gonna fend off Google and cloud computing with a touch screen? Good luck. I do hope there's a skunkworks Plan B in the labs. No wonder buying Yahoo "isn't strategic."
It's much worse than this.
When a company as bad as Yahoo [and Yahoo is abysmal], rejects a serious offer that inflates their worth beyond any they will ever see again, you have to ask why? Just being an abysmal company isn't good enough of a reason.
During the take-over fiasco, Yahoo was like the prisoner recently released after 30 years from a life sentence on compassionate grounds. Those grounds being that they were terminally ill. And as he stepped out onto the street, a $20,000 a night whore dew up in a diamond encrusted limo and offered him one last blow job... and he turned her down!
Why? How bad could a $20,000 a night whore, be that a condemned man would turn them down?
Answer: She looked and sounded like Ballmer!
When a company as bad as Yahoo [and Yahoo is abysmal], rejects a serious offer that inflates their worth beyond any they will ever see again, you have to ask why? Just being an abysmal company isn't good enough of a reason.
During the take-over fiasco, Yahoo was like the prisoner recently released after 30 years from a life sentence on compassionate grounds. Those grounds being that they were terminally ill. And as he stepped out onto the street, a $20,000 a night whore dew up in a diamond encrusted limo and offered him one last blow job... and he turned her down!
Why? How bad could a $20,000 a night whore, be that a condemned man would turn them down?
Answer: She looked and sounded like Ballmer!
How much does Bill pay you guys to blog his lost cause?
No, really. I'd like to know.
It would have to one BIG *** to get me to push that rice pudding up hill, with the piece of wet rope he gives you in facts worth repeating in his defence.
No, really. I'd like to know.
It would have to one BIG *** to get me to push that rice pudding up hill, with the piece of wet rope he gives you in facts worth repeating in his defence.
BongoBanger, its not worth it... They can't be helped. Just leave them be.
Like Icahn, you apparently don't care ONE BIT about the companies themselves, consumers or the employees of such companies. For once, I see a company that is NOT all about the almighty dollar and destroying people's lives so a few ultra-rich shareholders can make a quick 500 million or so while everyone else involved in the deal (namely the company and employees) get thrown to the wolves (namely Microsoft, one of the dirtiest companies on Earth that illegally pushes its way around like a schoolyard big bully).
Finally, the day has come where Microsoft has screwed up ROYALLY with its lackluster OS called Vista that is almost universally hated, they're falling leaps and bounds in the browser search market compared to Google and your so-called 'abysmal' company Yahoo. Frankly, if Yahoo is 'abysmal' then what does that make Microsoft considering its position in the same search market??? Less than abysmal? And yet you think Microsoft should acquire them so they can continue to charge at the market based on trying to rule market share to force out competition rather than compete WITH competition on the same grounds. Microsoft has NO ONE to blame but themselves for sucking so hard in the search business. Their own dirty tactics are coming back to haunt them. They clearly have the cash to expand their search engine capability, but no one wants to visit them! They figure the only way they can fix this is to muscle out the 2nd largest competitor and thereby make themselves (possibly in name disguise still using a more popular name like "Yahoo") bigger than they deserve to be. Their product failed on functionality and popularity so now it's time to leverage that money they've made off the backs of forcing out competition in the past to do it again in another market.
It's bad enough that Microsoft would be scum enough to try such tactics to begin with (the king of evil capitalism I suppose), but then you've got BILLIONAIRES that think they should be richer yet by selling out the lives and jobs of thousands of employees. Screw them all, I want to be richer! The sad thing is he can't even hide his sentiments. He's a spoiled little brat who whines and cries that Yahoo seeked to preserve itself as a company and competitor against someone that is doing far worse than them in that segment of the industry. He wants to replace management so he can sell the company out. That's not management. That's a bunch of stooges set up to ruin the company for a fast buck. I'm sure billionaire shareholders that buy stock like it's a gambling event and resell it as quickly as possible will LOVE that idea if they happen to own Yahoo stock they bought on speculation but didn't quite pan out for them, but it's no good for the company or its employees. Mergers always result in less competition, people getting canned and less choice for consumers.
I, like many others have Yahoo e-mail accounts. I do not have a M$ e-mail account for a very good reason. I hate the company, their dirty tactics and their complete disregard for privacy in favor of hacking their own OS to provide such information to them (take a closer look at Vista). If M$ somehow manages to acquire Yahoo, I will be closing that account (despite all the secondary companies I reference that account as an e-mail address to and the inconvenience of having to change them all) and go to Google. This will not help Yahoo or Microsoft. It will help their competitor, the leader, Google. People who don't like Microsoft will not like them under a new name either.
As for your views on multi-touch, you are clearly short-sighted and act like you know more than everyone on earth. I'm sure you really believe that. Your continued 'f-bomb' outbursts show how small your vocabulary is and the contempt you have for other people on here trying to discuss things in a civil manner. I will ignore your comments in the future. They do not merit replies.
BongoBanger, its not worth it... They can't be helped. Just leave them be.
Neither can MS:
http://thesmallwave.com/2008/06/06/...already-accomplished-something-in-the-future/
from the small wave:
Microsoft: Our Smartphones Have Already Accomplished Something in the Future.
The letter Microsofts Andy Lees sent to their hardware, carrier, and software partners is comical on many levels, not the least of which is that why would you want to emphasize the fact that youve got nothing to say?
It really is kind of a stupid letter, but it follows the classic Microsoft argument (indeed, the only one theyve ever had): When you got nothin, toss around big numbers.
But in this case, the number doesnt yet exist, which makes it all the more funny. Lees states:
"Its now my honor and privilege to announce a milestone that our partnership has accomplished. This fiscal year we will sell nearly 20 million Windows Mobile smartphone licenses"
The second sentence cannot logically follow from the first. Microsoft has accomplished a milestone that will take place in the current fiscal year? How silly can you get? At the very least, Mr. Lees, say youre on a pace to sell that many, or predict you will, or are on track to, etc. But dont pronounce a milestone as accomplished (past tense) by stating it will (future tense) happen, K? The letter is already silly enough, dont make it worse.
Oops, he made it worse:
"Youve [Handset Makers] delivered Windows Mobile phones with features like GPS, 3+ megapixel cameras, and voice activation features that other operating systems have been slow to deliver."
Operating systems can deliver those features? Really? Now thats some serious coding, and a level of expertise for which I would not have given Microsoft credit. How cool is it that an upgrade to your OS can add, say, GPS to your GPS-less phone. Wow. Those guys in Redmond must be really good.
The whole letter is nothing but an attempt at attention right before the iPhone 2.0 announcement. But why draw attention to yourself if you have nothing substantial to report?
I would say that Apple already wins this race since the iPhone runs a modified OS X and has multi-touch. Plus, by the time Windows 7 ships Apple may have added this tech to desktop OS X. But I agree that it's usefulness in the desktop marketplace is rather limited since most people do not have touchscreen monitors sitting on their desks.
Windows 7 is supposed to be coming out in 2010. At the rate technology is expanding, who knows what desktops will look like three years from now. Touchscreens will slowly and surely become larger and more commonplace.